For some reason I can't get the embedded bit to play. Which part are we referring to, the one where he lets Wright say exactly what he wanted to say, and then refuses to argue it, just letting it sit there, sort of glistening in its stupidity?

I wonder how much he feels his own insistence that the terror tactics ARE our fault contribute to the continuation of those tactics?

No one would blow up ANYTHING if they weren't assured that the end result would be condemnation, not of themselves, but of their enemies who made them do it.

This is the whole point of terrorism. That is the essential central tactic of terrorism.

Look what you made us do!

And to the extent that anyone supports that terrorist tactic they are contributing to it. What works is repeated. Look at the response in Spain? Madrid was bombed and people killed and what did Spain do?

Wayne Booth, English Prof and Dean of the University of Chicago (fund raising and riot control), in Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent (search for "reduplicating", p.8-9), on student protests then ongoing,

At one point things got so bad that each side reduplicating broadsides printed by the other side, and distributing them, in thousands of copies, without comment; to each side it seemed as if the other side's rhetoric was self-damning, so absurd had it become.

That he was content to let Wright's statement make his [Hitch's] point.

Hitch makes the argument that [mostly] liberal argument of moral equivalency is bogus and rather than make claims as to what liberals say, he lets a died-in-the-wool liberal make the exact kind of moral equivalency argument he was talking about.

If he's arguing that religious extremism proves that God doesn't exist, he's wrong. Most religions weren't instituted by God, or if they were, they've long since become the vehicle for men using them for power and privilege. Hence, we guaranteed freedom of religion but outlaw establishment of religion. To the extent that Islam demands the latter as Sharia law, it's incompatible with our constitution, as is any religion that justifies murder and denial of rights recognized by our laws, such a free speech, equality before the law, etc.

That being said, Hitchens has the better of this debate. Even Obama acknowledged today that we have to oppose evil in the world with force.

Wright whiny complaint that he's been unfairly accused of blaming America, shows his intellectual shallowness. His arguments would certainly leave us helpless in the face of those who want to destroy us for fear that defending ourselves might have unforeseen and violent results.

He should stick to writing. His voice and manner of speaking gives him a Barney Fife quality that is quite unconvincing.

Once was that Hitchens said that some people blame the United States instead of blaming the people who set the bombs. Wright denied the *blame* but said it was caused by our actions.

And then as a sort of example to counter Hitchens argument that other people groups suffer far worse and *don't* set bombs, so how can it be these events that are to blame -- Wright said that not everyone who smokes gets cancer but do we say that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

IIRC, in both cases Hitchens "conceded" the argument and thanked Wright for saying so.

That was the most complete beat down that I have ever seen. Hitch made Wright look like a panicked intellectual that wants to set a false assumption of facts and argue from that, but he runs into a smooth user of the real facts and reasoning and is smashed. Hitch is really a highly skilled debater.I still like Wright because he has been nice to Althouse, but the man is inept and helpless when he meets a skilled debater.